Foley catheter with vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel alone for induction of labour: a randomized controlled trial

Ruchika Garg, Shailza Vardhan, Saroj Singh, Richa Singh


Background: Induction of labour is significant when continuing pregnancy possess adverse effect on health of mother and her unborn baby. Different methods have been used for induction of labour. At present there is very less literature regarding simultaneous use of Foleys catheter and PGs.  The present study was done to compare the efficacy of using intracervical Foleys catheter and PGE2 gel simultaneously versus PGE2 gel alone for induction of labour.

Methods: Prospective study, conducted in department of obstetrics and gynaecology for duration of 6 months. 100 women requiring induction of labour were included in the study and were randomly divided into two groups. 50 women were included in group A (simultaneous use of intracervical Foley catheter with PGE2 gel) and 50 women were included in Group B (intravaginal insertion of PGE2 gel only).

Results: Maternal age, gestation age, parity, indication of induction and primary Bishops score were comparable in both the groups. Mean induction to active phase interval in both groups which was 5.8±0.80 hours in Group A and 6.23±0.40 hours in Group B. Also mean time taken from induction to delivery in Group A was 10.08±5.6 hours and in Group B was 14.6±6.9 hours which was significantly less in Group A. The rate of vaginal delivery in group A and Group B was 66% and 58% respectively which was slightly more in Group A but was not significant.

Conclusions: In the present study we conclude that simultaneous use of mechanical method with Foleys catheter and PGE2 gel is better and more effective method for induction of labour than PGE2 alone. However, large sample size is required to reach more confirmatory results.


Cervical ripening, Foley’s catheter, PGE2 gel

Full Text:



Mackenzie IZ. Labour induction including pregnany termination for fetal anomaly, In: James DE, Steer PJ, J Rawalpindi Medical College (JRMC); 2007;11:98

Weiner CP, GonikB, (edis). High risk pregnancy, management options. Londin: WB Saunders 1994:1041-59.

World Health Organization. Department of reproductive health and research. WHO recommendations for induction of labour. Geneva. Switzerland: World Health Organisation; 2011:32

Tofatter KF, Bowers D, Standby RN, Gall A, Killam AP. Pre-induction cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 gel. Am J Obset Gynecol.1985;153:268-71

Heinemann J, Gillen G, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Do mechanical methods of cervical ripening increase infectious morbidity? A systematic review. American J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Aug 1;1999:177-88.

Jozwiak SM, Oude RK, Benthem M, Van BE, Dijksterhuis MG, de Graaf IM. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT TRIAL): an open–label, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2011; 378:2095-103

Orhue AA, Ande AB. Induction of labour. In; Okpere EE, ed. Clinical Obstetrics. Benin: University of Benin Press. 2004.

Embrey MP and Mollison BG. The unfavourable cervix and induction of labour using a cervical balloon. J Obset Gynaecol Br. Common W. 1967, 74:44

Boulvain M.Stan C, Irion O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane review. The Cochrane library 2004(1)[update software].

Thomas IL, Chenoweth JN, Tronc GN, Johnson IR. Preparation for induction of labour of the unfavourable cervix with Foley catheter compared with prostaglandin. Aust NZ Obste Gynaecol. 1986;26:30-5.

Sciscione AC, McCullough H, Manley JS, Sholossman PA, Pollock M, Colmorgen GHC. A prospective, randomized comparison of Foley catheter insertionvrsus intra-cervical prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening Am J Obset Gynecol. 1999;180:55-9.

St Onge RD, Connors GT. Preinduction cervical ripening. A comparison of intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel versus the Foleys cathter. Am J Obset Gynaecol. 1995;172:687-90.